CCMIN031081 - Laserfiche WebLink

Councilmember Kephart asked if the profiles were submitted to the Planning Commission. Mr. Dunkley replied they had not been. Councilmember Kephart asked if the typical elevation map had been presented to the Planning Commission. Mr. Dunkley replied it had not been. Councilmember Kephart asked if there had been discussion about the trees. Mr. Dunkley advised there had been, as well as a grading plan and base density map. Mr. Ed McGovern, 9026 Longview Drive, stated the problem with this development is that it is not consistent with the General Plan and expectations of the property owners in the area. He expressed concern about density. He stated this proposal is in excess of what the Hillside Planned Development Ordinance allows and he felt the density should be lowered to 9 or 10 homes for this parcel of land. Mr. Dunkley stated that there had been density adjustments on other properties in the area. There being no further testimony, Mayor Mercer declared the public hearing closed on these items. Mayor Mercer stated there seemed to be some question as to whether all of the information had been submitted to the Planning Commission. He asked the City Attorney if there is grounds for suit and what are the liabilities. The City Attorney advised the chief liability is being told by the judge to do the develop- ment process over and pay attorneys fees. It was moved by Councilmember Wood, and seconded by Councilmember Kephart, to send this item back to the Planning Commission to consider all of the information relative to the application, and to change the Hillside Planned Development Ordi- nance to include yard area as open space. Councilmember Kephart stated he was not convinced the omissions were weighty enough to refer this item back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Harris presented background information on the project, stating it had been the most researched project to come before the Planning Commission until the Meyer proposal. He advised that every member of the Planning Commission had walked the site and had considered the topography, vegetation, grade and fill, utilities, impact on surrounding property, and improvements. He stated they had gained more informa- tion from this type of review than looking at a slope map. He stated that all docu- ments had been required of Mr. Dunkley as had been required of Dr. Long and the Boatright application. After discussion, Councilmember Kephart withdrew his second to the motion made by Councilmember Wood. After further discussion, Councilmember Wood's motion died for lack of a second. Councilmember Butler stated he had concerns about Lots 6 and 7 because of their steepness, and also about the small sized lots in the lower area. Councilmember Butler stated the Ordinance does not talk about any degree of findings made; that the intent is to allow flexibility and he felt the developer had gone about planning the property in a proper fashion and in the main complying with the intent of the ordinance. It was moved by Councilmember Butler, and seconded by Councilmember Kephart, that Resolution No. 81-66, determining on the basis of a review of initial environmental study done fqr this project, that no significant environmental impact would occur as outlined in the City's guidelines and that a Negative Declaration is appropriate for 9. 3/10/81